[beersk]

You think you guys can wait until January for the results? Ha.

No!

Yes...

[klickitat jim]

I dont disagree that if you want to know for certain, you have to accurately measure and compare. I also think there is plenty of room for just tasting, enjoying, and declaring a beer as you see it.

Voice in the wilderness speaking up for the importance of personal opinion

"If a tree falls in the woods......."

I agree Jim. At some point someone has to like the beer regardless.

I agree with you guys about liking the beer, but, if someone is publishing the result of a scientific experiment, I think more information is a good thing.

Certainly. Hands down.

But that's not enough, is what im saying. The average crafty beer drinker isn't going to be emotionally drawn to a beer slogan like "Precisely engineered, and efficiently reproduced to the highest tolerances" But... "Never the same, but always enjoyable" might sell a buttload

Right but this is a homebrewing forum and a lot of us are drawn to that.

Absolutely, me too. Besides, "I don't know, I just like it" doesn't make for as interesting of a debate.

[denny]

I dont disagree that if you want to know for certain, you have to accurately measure and compare. I also think there is plenty of room for just tasting, enjoying, and declaring a beer as you see it.

Voice in the wilderness speaking up for the importance of personal opinion

Of course, but it all depends on your objective.  Those are two different things for different situations.  One is objective, the other is subjective,

[narvin]

I'm intrigued by the idea of knowing the recipe and parameters when taking triangle tests.  If you can focus on the one aspect of the beer, but still have to differentiate between blind samples, so what?  It's not ideal for fair judging but I think there could be some benefits for flavor analysis.

Also, since tasters can be so different, why not give each person the test multiple times?  Seems like there would be some benefit to eliminating palate differences and getting more information without finding more testers.  Of course, people do need to drive home...

[PrettyBeard]

I'm intrigued by the idea of knowing the recipe and parameters when taking triangle tests.  If you can focus on the one aspect of the beer, but still have to differentiate between blind samples, so what?  It's not ideal for fair judging but I think there could be some benefits for flavor analysis.

Also, since tasters can be so different, why not give each person the test multiple times?  Seems like there would be some benefit to eliminating palate differences and getting more information without finding more testers.  Of course, people do need to drive home...

I'm intrigued by all the the other aspects of beer.  I'd really like to see the responses to those that missed the odd one out.  Just for curiosity.

[klickitat jim]

I dont disagree that if you want to know for certain, you have to accurately measure and compare. I also think there is plenty of room for just tasting, enjoying, and declaring a beer as you see it.

Voice in the wilderness speaking up for the importance of personal opinion

Of course, but it all depends on your objective.  Those are two different things for different situations.  One is objective, the other is subjective,

I'm tracking with you, but really arent they are both subjective? Its just that the blind triangle is much less subjective. A purely objective test would require chemical analysis and comparison like with a GC/MS.

[pete b]

If tasting were objective science could just figure out which beer tastes the best and we would all drink it. That doesn't mean these tests aren't useful, they provide more data about well informed subjective opinions. The more people that can sense a difference the more likely I will too.

[AmandaK]

I'm intrigued by the idea of knowing the recipe and parameters when taking triangle tests.  If you can focus on the one aspect of the beer, but still have to differentiate between blind samples, so what? It's not ideal for fair judging but I think there could be some benefits for flavor analysis.

That is precisely why I am toying with the idea of taking the 'successful' blind triangle judges and telling them that I'm testing different mashing procedures before they fill out scoresheets. The point of the scoresheets is flavor analysis, not a simple differentiation, so I'm thinking that revealing the general nature without revealing the beers will be the way I go.

Anyone thirsty for some Pilsner? I'm going to take what will probably be the last gravity reading in the primary today as they have dropped clear. Dunkel and Schwarz brew day(s) on Sunday! Woot!!

[erockrph]

I'm intrigued by the idea of knowing the recipe and parameters when taking triangle tests.  If you can focus on the one aspect of the beer, but still have to differentiate between blind samples, so what? It's not ideal for fair judging but I think there could be some benefits for flavor analysis.

That is precisely why I am toying with the idea of taking the 'successful' blind triangle judges and telling them that I'm testing different mashing procedures before they fill out scoresheets. The point of the scoresheets is flavor analysis, not a simple differentiation, so I'm thinking that revealing the general nature without revealing the beers will be the way I go.

Anyone thirsty for some Pilsner? I'm going to take what will probably be the last gravity reading in the primary today as they have dropped clear. Dunkel and Schwarz brew day(s) on Sunday! Woot!!

Any time you reveal anything you run the risk of introducing bias. Once you do that, your results are compromised. You may may indeed help a taster find something that they couldn't quite put their finger on, but you also run the risk of leading them to find things that they have expectations or preconceived notions of.

I think both methods have value. I'd probably either A) collect impressions initial impressions from everyone, then reveal the nature of the test to the tasters who got it correct and collect their data -OR- B) Take an initial set of impressions from those with correct answers prior to revealing the nature of the experiment, then reveal the details and see if that gets you more information. This would get you a set of unbiased data, then still have the opportunity to get a bit more objective insight.

[klickitat jim]

Maybe thats why I get such great results.  I pour one sample of my beer and two of the control,  then ask Which one of these beers is the most fantastic?

[a10t2]

How about having everyone give feedback (spider plot?), and then do the triangle test? You could still ask for impressions from correct triangle-testers afterward if you wanted, but the initial input would be blind.

[klickitat jim]

How about having everyone give feedback (spider plot?), and then do the triangle test? You could still ask for impressions from correct triangle-testers afterward if you wanted, but the initial input would be blind.

Which leads to another thought. Leaving out style entirely. I think judges are great, but there can be a tendancy to focus on how a beer would do in a comp... meaning how does it line up to a syle... learning toward how similar is it to their favorite commercial example. Sometimes I think we should entirely leave that out. What do you perceive in this beer? Not, what do you perceive in this (whatever style).  At the very end maybe ask what style would this beer represent? Then if those answers come back APA, IPA, Pilsner, etc it shines some light on the other comments.

[mchrispen]

Anyone thirsty for some Pilsner?

raises his hand.

[ynotbrusum]

Anyone thirsty for some Pilsner?

raises his hand.

Both hands! 

I have a Helles and a schwarz waiting to be kegged next weekend for XMas Eve - 10 gallons of each, so I have some kegs to clear at a party next Friday night (a Vienna and a Czech pale lager - 10 gallons each - last year the first keg of Vienna blew in 15 minutes).  Can't wait to taste them!

[HoosierBrew]

How about having everyone give feedback (spider plot?), and then do the triangle test? You could still ask for impressions from correct triangle-testers afterward if you wanted, but the initial input would be blind.

I like this idea best.